GamePolitics - Comments for "NYC: Net Neutrality Hearings Today"http://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/11/20/nyc-net-neutrality-hearings-today
Comments for "NYC: Net Neutrality Hearings Today"enRe: NYC: Net Neutrality Hearings Todayhttp://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/11/20/nyc-net-neutrality-hearings-today#comment-241396
<p>Sorry for the double post, got too wordy on that other one.</p><p>As for your claim that Net Neutrality would with a 100% certainty destroy my gaming experience, I would have to say that its dubious at best. Your claim that is. Your position is such that my traffic would then be queued with the others and in times of congestion, lag and die? This is a given should there be such a serious lag. However, if there is enough traffic overall throughout the day that would congest their infrastructure all day, it would probably be a good hint to the ISPs that they probably need to get some upgrading on hand. At present, ISPs would like to squeeze as much customerbase that they can from their current infrastructure before they would even consider upgrading. This is a given, but I do not see any value in getting ANY of my traffic treated as a 2nd class citizen when they manage their networks in order to maintain a decent level of service for their &quot;priority&quot; services.</p><p>This is the reality that could occur as broadband/cable coverage expands. ISPs will not want to have to justify to their shareholders that their push for more clients would incur costs. They'd very much like to widen their customer base without spending any more than they already are regularly.</p><p>To show why I see your claim as unlikely, I would point out that without a viable way for them to manage their networks unfairly, they would then have to invest in infrastructure. Failing which, an opposing ISP could easily pop in and snatch up customers with a simple tag line of &quot;Ain't as slow as the other guys who don't spend on infrastructure&quot;.&nbsp;</p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>Oooh! You mean there are people around with the mythical &quot;Common Sense&quot;?</p>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:41:54 +0000spastkidcomment 241396 at http://www.gamepolitics.comRe: NYC: Net Neutrality Hearings Todayhttp://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/11/20/nyc-net-neutrality-hearings-today#comment-241394
<p>I see that you do not get the point. First off, yes, lag is usually a silly issue that can happen with or without prioritising of traffic. Especially if your local router/switch to the ISP's network is borked and/or loaded with all of your neighbours. BUT, as a habit, game traffic tends to be in the order of 10kb/s or thereabouts and yes, it IS time sensitive.</p><p>However, that IS the common sense approach that I am taking in appraising this situations. You say that there is no reason for ISPs to deprioritise my gaming traffic? This in itself is odd. In explaining, I shall raise the example of what if say, my ISP happens to be running a lucrative VOIP service using their beautiful pipes. Now, you also state that VOIP tends to be time sensitive too. In this situation, IF my ISP wants to maintain the service level given to their VOIP clients, what happens to MY time-sensitive gaming traffic? If push comes to shove, would you imagine that they'd prioritise my traffic on the same level as theirs? Hardly. At present as it is, the ISPs of the States at the least, seem to bristle at the very thought of having their pipes get data sent in from sites that aren't their partners. Of course, for arguments' sake, we can then assume that some high performing MMORPGs are paying my ISP to allow their traffic free rein. What if I wasn't subscribed to such a MMORPG? Did you imagine that my ISP would then be willing to allow my gaming traffic any form of priority?</p><p>The situation would then develop such that they'd be more likely than not, to prioritise the traffic of their partner MMORPGs over unpartnered ones. So what happens to me? Even if we take away any partnerships with MMORPGs, based on the visible mindset of ISPs to slow down traffic that they do not agree with, even if its legitimate according to their terms, what makes you think that they will be willing to allow my traffic any chance of a timely travel?</p><p>And that, is my point of view of what would happen if say, net neutrality was poofed. In short, without any guidelines or commitments by my ISP to ensure that my stuff doesnt get shortchanged in order to benefit their network should they decide that its not worthwhile to improve their infrastructure. Its more likely that not that they will manage the networks in favour of their own interests and not mine, despite me being a paying customer.</p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>Oooh! You mean there are people around with the mythical &quot;Common Sense&quot;?</p>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:29:50 +0000spastkidcomment 241394 at http://www.gamepolitics.comRe: NYC: Net Neutrality Hearings Todayhttp://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/11/20/nyc-net-neutrality-hearings-today#comment-241373
<p>&lt;&lt;As for games and speeds/pings thats simple you'll have to wait until the net can prioritize small data bursts from game severs I am sure it could be worked into a new protocol that ISPs can easily adopt, this protocol would not give you much in the way of speed of perhaps an 1/8th or a 1/4 to a half of your line speed&nbsp; at half the ping, you need to think outside the box instead of try and poke holes it.&gt;&gt;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>How are ISP's going to prioritize when the NPRM doesn't allow them to prioritize.&nbsp; Considering that your argument is dead right there, we don't need to move on to the fact that what you're asking for is impossible because you're essentially asking for buffering or cacheing.&nbsp; That doesn't work in a video game where action and reaction is instantaneous.</p>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:45:02 +0000thelobbyist.netcomment 241373 at http://www.gamepolitics.comRe: NYC: Net Neutrality Hearings Todayhttp://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/11/20/nyc-net-neutrality-hearings-today#comment-241371
<p>So your position then is that you would rather have government mandated rules that will with 100% certainty if passed, destroy your online gaming experience rather than have no regulation with a increadibly small percentage chance that an ISP&nbsp;would delay an extremely small bandwidth application?</p><p>Not only is that insane logic, but it would never happen.&nbsp; On one hand Neutralist want to claim that ISP's want to block high bandwidth applications like torrenting so that small applications can get through.&nbsp; Now on the other hand you want to claim that ISP's want to block small applications for the big ones. &nbsp;You can't have it both ways.</p><p>There is zero reason why an ISP would want to block an application like an online video game that is on average taking up roughly 300Kbps.&nbsp; That is basically non-existent traffic compared to other applications and content delivery mechanisms on the Internet.&nbsp; The only difference is that without priority, your game is screwed.</p><p>Yes, you are correct, your gaming traffic will have no priority over your neighbors bit torrent traffic, and his torrent traffic will have no priority over your video game traffic.&nbsp; You are absolutely, 100%, without a doubt correct on this point.&nbsp; And that is the crux of the entire issue.</p><p>This is very common sense at this point, and considering your sig, you should appreciate this.&nbsp; If gaming is a time-sensitive application, and torrenting is not a time sensative application.&nbsp; What happens when torrent packets get queue stacked behind your gaming traffic at the neighborhood router? Nothing.&nbsp; What happens when your gaming packets get queue stacked behind your neighbors torrent traffic at the router? Your game lags and when the new packets finally get through, you've died, you crashed, you fell down a hole, whatever. Game over.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="http://www.thelobbyist.net" title="www.thelobbyist.net">www.thelobbyist.net</a></p>Tue, 24 Nov 2009 01:40:47 +0000thelobbyist.netcomment 241371 at http://www.gamepolitics.comRe: NYC: Net Neutrality Hearings Todayhttp://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/11/20/nyc-net-neutrality-hearings-today#comment-241287
<p>I've read &amp; seen that net neutrality is basically hulu.com, youtube.com, yahoo.com, google.com, facebook.com &amp;&nbsp;so on would charge a fee to use their sites to watch or search for or just do any activity including gaming like flash games for the casual gamers out there. I&nbsp;think charging for the services of any site is ridiculous. We pay enough for our games &amp;&nbsp;for internet!</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&quot;It's better to be hated for who you are, then be loved for who you are not.&quot; - Montgomery Gentry</p>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:05:42 +0000sharpshooterbabecomment 241287 at http://www.gamepolitics.comRe: NYC: Net Neutrality Hearings Todayhttp://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/11/20/nyc-net-neutrality-hearings-today#comment-241241
<p>No not everything is the same but when dealing with an opportunistic media industry you have to treat all data the same, its just a same we can't treat all data lines the same. One can not really give any business priority over data speed, not on the internet at least for a closed network like Live or PSN ya that is fine but the net not so much because its simply to big and there is to much to screw up to even try it without better and easier to use technology.</p><br /> <br /><p>As for games and speeds/pings thats simple you'll have to wait until the net can prioritize small data bursts from game severs I am sure it could be worked into a new protocol that ISPs can easily adopt, this protocol would not give you much in the way of speed of perhaps an 1/8th or a 1/4 to a half of your line speed&nbsp; at half the ping, you need to think outside the box instead of try and poke holes it.</p><br /> <hr /><p>Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! Stop supporting big media and furthering the criminalization of consumers!! <a href="http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/" title="http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/">http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/</a></p>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 14:15:44 +0000ZippyDSMleecomment 241241 at http://www.gamepolitics.comRe: NYC: Net Neutrality Hearings Todayhttp://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/11/20/nyc-net-neutrality-hearings-today#comment-241232
<p>Net Neutrality supporters have MORE&nbsp;lobbyists in DC than the telecommunications companies? Do they send more on a company to company basis than the telecomms fellows do? Or on an overall basis?&nbsp;I hate to do it as wikipedia does but, &lt;Citation Needed&gt;.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>Oooh! You mean there are people around with the mythical &quot;Common Sense&quot;?</p>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:29:38 +0000spastkidcomment 241232 at http://www.gamepolitics.comRe: NYC: Net Neutrality Hearings Todayhttp://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/11/20/nyc-net-neutrality-hearings-today#comment-241231
<p>Your arguments about how those who support video gaming shouldn't support net neutrality doesn't even begin to make sense. Let's say, net neutrality fails, who's to say that there will not be any ISP&nbsp;who will set packets by online games to a lower priority such that their &quot;time-sensitive&quot; VOIP&nbsp;packets do not get interrupted by those pesky gamers who dare to use their purchased connection to play online games?</p><p>Also, your post seems to be filled with strawmen arguments. I doubt that you would find someone here who is somewhat up to date on net neutrality issues who would think that it is all about blocking websites. While it IS&nbsp;true that your &quot;gaming traffic&quot; will have no priority over your neighbour's traffic of a &quot;lower priority&quot;, your neighbour's traffic isn't going to have any priority over yours anyway..</p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>Oooh! You mean there are people around with the mythical &quot;Common Sense&quot;?</p>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 05:27:32 +0000spastkidcomment 241231 at http://www.gamepolitics.comRe: NYC: Net Neutrality Hearings Todayhttp://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/11/20/nyc-net-neutrality-hearings-today#comment-241221
<p>If they were there, I'm sure Google had plenty Net Neutrality lobbyists there to counter balance. What I&nbsp;don't get about the people that complain about lobbying on this site is the fact that the people supporting Net Neutrality actually have MORE&nbsp;lobbyists in DC&nbsp;than the telecomm companies. Not to mention the fact that you are supporting a website that is owned by the ECA&nbsp;who themselves have lobbyists.&nbsp; Double standard much?</p><br />Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:53:04 +0000thelobbyist.netcomment 241221 at http://www.gamepolitics.comRe: NYC: Net Neutrality Hearings Todayhttp://www.gamepolitics.com/2009/11/20/nyc-net-neutrality-hearings-today#comment-241219
<p>It baffles me that ECA continues to step on their own toes with this.&nbsp; If the ECA truly supports video games then they are doing video gamers a disservice by supporting anything to do with net neutrality regulation.</p><p>The FCC NPRM proposed last month prevents ANY discremination in applications.&nbsp; Which means video games will have 0 prioritization. You will have massive jitter in your online games. i.e. lag or queue stacking.&nbsp; You will have no priority over your next door neighbors 24/7 torrenting, or any other bandwidth heavy applications.&nbsp; Gaming traffic is very, very small. But its time sensitivity is extremely high. </p><p>If you support video gaming, you should not be supporting regulation.&nbsp; Support neutrality all you want, but support it by using smart infrastructure, not dumb networks that treat everything the same.&nbsp; Everything on the net is not the same. And applications like video games and VoIP must have priority. If you think the neutrality argument is about blocking websites, you are very misinformed. Find your local network engineer and pick their brain.</p><p><a href="http://www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/podcast2/">www.digitalsociety.org/2009/11/podcast2/</a></p>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:50:51 +0000thelobbyist.netcomment 241219 at http://www.gamepolitics.com